The much needed UCI loller thread

[yaco]

There's a clear contradiction in the statements.
As per UCI, "The UCI regrets that certain teams have objected to the test by not nominating a rider to carry the tracking device".
As per the teams, "We made clear that ... The UCI or its partner was free to select a rider and install the device at their own liability".

So, sounds as if the teams wanted to shift the responsibility for selecting the test rider to UCI, while UCI insisted on the teams to do so. I am quite sure both parties had some background motives. But still surprised that UCI proceeded with the dsq - how can they justify it to the organizer? The race lost the best third of its competitors just like that..

It makes sense that the teams select the rider or otherwise you may have a dispute if the UCI selects the rider. Even though they ended with a dispute.

 

[search]

There are a bunch of tweets from Vaughters about this, without much substance at all - apart from him now prefering a North Korean run racing series over the UCI.

 

[Wyndbrook]

There are a bunch of tweets from Vaughters about this, without much substance at all - apart from him now prefering a North Korean run racing series over the UCI.

Forget North Korea, I'm not even sure I know what planet he's on. Suggesting the rider from each team to trial the new device is a victim.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I didn't delve to much into it but the way i see it UCI needs results and needs them fast. There is now tremendous pressure to do something on when it comes to improving riders safety, to the level of questioning ones competence.

Anyway, disqualifying half of the teams is silly on so much levels. First one the most obvious one, without riders there is no cycling. Secondly, riders are not stupid, that is they likely don't trust UCI to do anything meaningful to make their job safe(r).

So the reaction i guess is rather normal, UCI tried to tell a bunch of women that UCI will protect them, citing some bogus claims, or else. Obviously that is a big no no in the real word.

So my recommendation here would be to first build trust and you can only do that by doing something meaningful, like for example actually make pro peloton safe(r).

 

[Rob5091]

The UCI will not be questioned!!

 

[SafeBet]

Great week for women cycling, that has to be said.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

The safety concern is for riders, not their bikes, so why are the gadgets to be attached to bikes? Teams are already having their riders carry rather bulky radios (they always look to me to be much bigger than technologically necessary), so could scarcely object to a tracker chip. Bike changes happen in a race, jersey changes far less frequently.

Has the UCI forgotten that they run a training centre? If they want a low volume test, they have a group of riders literally on their doorstep going out to train every day. A proper test for the equipment ought to include checking whether it works at volume, and safety concerns obviously are not limited to one rider per team, so why was the requirement for the teams to select one? Would the teams have dropped their objections if everyone had to carry them ? I doubt it.

It would be naive to believe that it was refusal to select a rider "to be the victim" (grow up, Vaughters) that is the issue here. This is all about who has the whereabouts of every rider during the race information to sell as live tracking to the broadcasters. There is money to be made from avoiding having Carlton list every rider in a ProTeam off his PCS screen when the breakaway is being formed.

 

[Potomac]

The safety need, as I see it, is to have every rider periodically reporting their position to some centralized database.
Let each team figure out how to do it.

 

[Unchained]

The UCI will not be questioned!!

Show me your papers..get in the van..

 

[proffate]

There is money to be made from avoiding having Carlton list every rider in a ProTeam off his PCS screen when the breakaway is being formed.

What money is there to be made aside from saving Carlton's salary? Can he use that time to tell us about athletic greens instead?

 

[mrgmyers]

After conducting extensive research on the subject of the UCI's disqualification of teams that refused to comply with the UCI's alleged rider safety devices on their bikes.
I have some observations on why the devices are not fitted to the riders, as they can be thrown some distance from their bike in an accident, as we have sadly seen in the past.
Why are the UCI so keen to own the data if they are not planning to sell it without the permission of the teams?
This appears to be more about the UCI being desperate to gain more funds for themselves rather than any consideration of care for riders; the head of the UCI seems to think he is dealing with slow-witted adolescents rather than serious businessmen and women.
Why did the UCI demand that women riders must adhere to their handlebar rules when it's clear that doing so may damage their health?
There are a lot of questions that require answers; after all the teams do not need the UCI; they can always equip their own riders with tracking devices, then share the data with organisers and emergency services and sidestep the greedy UCI.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I have some observations on why the devices are not fitted to the riders, as they can be thrown some distance from their bike in an accident, as we have sadly seen in the past.

When?

 

[CyclistAbi]

In UCI defence, they managed to keep disqualified teams safe.

 

[mrgmyers]

When?

Are you a bit slow! Geriant Thomas , Pillip Gilbert, Remoco Evenepoel all fell down mountains, separated from their bikes.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Are you a bit slow! Geriant Thomas , Pillip Gilbert, Remoco Evenepoel all fell down mountains, separated from their bikes.

Please do not insult forum users with such language.

Those examples would surely add to the suggestions that the trackers should be on the riders' person, not on their bikes.

 

[mrgmyers]

Please do not insult forum users with such language.

Those examples would surely add to the suggestions that the trackers should be on the riders' person, not on their bikes.

If you are a moderator, I would expect you to know something about the subject you are moderating I used no bad language! You asked a silly question, and now you try to shame the person who gave you the answer to cover yourself.

 

[RedheadDane]

Geriant Thomas , Pillip Gilbert, Remoco Evenepoel all fell down mountains, separated from their bikes.

Would cases like that really be such a big problem if all the trackers need to do is alert rescue crew that "Oh, ***! This person has come to a sudden stop, and has not started moving again!"? The rider will still be relatively close to the bike.
The main problem - as I see it - is that then there'd need to be trackers not only on each rider's main bike, but also their spare bikes, and the neutral service bikes, and everyone will need to remember to activate the trackers on bikes being used.
So... definitely smarter to have it on the individual riders. Which, leads me to a question:
Why not just put it on the helmets?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

If you are a moderator, I would expect you to know something about the subject you are moderating I used no bad language! You asked a silly question, and now you try to shame the person who gave you the answer to cover yourself.

You used insulting language: I didn't say that you used bad language.

I asked you to substantiate your suggestion that there had been "sad" examples recently of a device attached to a bike being thrown some distance from a bike, and that this was a reason why such devices should not be attached to the riders. From the examples you have now given, it appears that you simply did a very poor job of explaining what you meant: that you were thinking of examples of riders ending up some distance from their bikes, and that these are actually reasons why the devices should be attached to the riders, contrary to the impression you first gave.

 

[Berniece]

Please do not insult forum users with such language.

Those examples would surely add to the suggestions that the trackers should be on the riders' person, not on their bikes.

Indeed, Evenepoel is a great example where the rider is not near his bike at all.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

But situations that were caught on camera are obviously not the best examples, since you assume that help will be on its way quite fast regardless. In Furrer's case, no one were aware of where she was, so even if her bike didn't land right next to her body, they could still have started the search earlier if they had known her bike was somewhere on/near the course. Still if a rider has to switch bikes, it's clearly better if the rider is wearing it on their body to avoid confusion.

 

[QueenStagiaire]

Indeed, Evenepoel is a great example where the rider is not near his bike at all.

Well, he‘s within about ten meters of his bike, he‘s just not in this picture. If his GPS tracker showed him one meter next to the bridge that would hardly be visible on any GPS tracking.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Well, he‘s within about ten meters of his bike, he‘s just not in this picture. If his GPS tracker showed him one meter next to the bridge that would hardly be visible on any GPS tracking.

And GPS signal is also going to be weaker in a wooded ravine than on the bridge, so if anything, in this particular case having the tracker on the bike would likely have been closer to Evenepoel's actual position.

 

[Berniece]

Well, he‘s within about ten meters of his bike, he‘s just not in this picture. If his GPS tracker showed him one meter next to the bridge that would hardly be visible on any GPS tracking.

And GPS signal is also going to be weaker in a wooded ravine than on the bridge, so if anything, in this particular case having the tracker on the bike would likely have been closer to Evenepoel's actual position.

This depends on the quality of the device. The tech can be much better than your average Garmin device. If my lawnmower can have an RTK GPS, I hope they can do the same for bike riders. Just put one device on the bike, and the other on the rider. Wouldn't that work?

EDIT: Asked Chat-GPT, it can work, but it's unnecessarily complex and not feasible in a practical sense.

 

[andrew_s]

I would comment that GPS itself is listen only, and some other radio device is required to send position and alerts to the race organisers.
Simple is via the phone network, but we all know how frequent loss of signal is when out on the road.
It will be interesting to find out how it ends up getting done.

 

[Sciatic]

Regardless of the correct method, it's ridiculous they went for disqualification. That's just bullying--as in "don't you challenge us or we'll show you." It would be like sending out armored SWAT teams for minor traffic violations. Oh wait, that is a thing now.